Friday, 7 November 2014

From time to time, the fates conspire against us all and the absence of our last show of the series and the delay in the start of UKCLBP (as I am now calling it) is testament to this.

We don't generally take a series break as you know but we need one at the moment.

We have had people moving jobs, I have been beset with Whooping Cough (I know! How very 19th Century of me to get that as an adult)
and we think that one of our number might actually have been abducted by a Ministry of Justice hitsquad.

So, please accept our apologies and know that when UKCLBP (it'll catch on..) comes back next week, all will be well with the world of legal podcasting once more.

In the meantime, we are thinking of doing a mailbag episode of Northpod Law. If you have a burning question for any of us, now is the time to send it in. mail@northpod.co.uk will do nicely.

The episode that might never have happened is finally here. You can listen right here.

What with Ben being incapacitated, Kirstin being snowed-under and Jonathan having been abducted by aliens (some of this may not be true), a big dent has been made on our otherwise reliable schedule. We apologise unreservedly.

In this week's show, we have a look at R v Creathorne - an interesting case in which the question of how much credit ought to be given for a plea of guilty where the CPS hasn't handed-over the evidence at the time of the first hearing in the Crown Court. This is crucial listening for lawyers and, just as much, for judges.

Whilst bemoaning the CPS's failures in the service of papers, we congratulate them on a bit of sensible legal commentary on the subject of the need for new laws.

Also, we look at judicial diversity and Kirstin takes a sideways look at a rather peculiar case from US Supreme Court about beards.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

You can listen to this week's show right here.This week's show is about the Tory plan to abolish the Human Rights Act and to put England and Wales (though not Scotland or NI, of course) outside of the direct constraints of International Human Rights law.It's a good job that Ben is still barely croaking otherwise this would no doubt have been an angry rant full of vitriol about our Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor. Surely Kirstin will be far more calm about it...Of course, you might want to balance the Tory slandering of the Act and the ECHR against a few examples of what the law has meant for us.For a great collection of what to read about this to know more on both sides of the argument, please see the excellent compendium put together by David Allen Green.Not only that but it has been a little while since we heard what's going on in the world of immigration law. There has been a report about the Home Office and its ability to do its job. Spoilers, government subcontractors are not exactly thrilling us with their efficiency. Jonathan Holt explains all. Visit Bail For Immigration Detainees and read all about it.Next week should be a little more chatty assuming none of contract any other horrible illnesses.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

With Ben still suffering from the Dreaded Lurgy and Jonathan being AWOL, Kirstin is left to man the battlements of Northpod Towers this week. Have a listen right here.With all that is going in at the MoJ (for whom it has not been a good week!), we couldn't let that go by without a mention.

All being well, we might even have a full team next week and we hope you'll join us then.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Friday, 19 September 2014

This week we scrabble around in the mud to bring you a frankly minimal offering of law. It may have been the silly season but the law has (at least in this country) remained aloof and above such matters.Sadly this show was recorded before the Lord Chancellor was defeated in the High Court by criminal solicitors using judicial review - a system Grayling would like to seee abolished - and now we can see why. He acted illegally. That didn't stop his press office tweeting (like a petulant child) that it wasn't a complete victory for them but they did get to keep the 8.75% cut. Not that that was the point of this particular action. He's like this government's Comical Ali.

Nevertheless, the bulk of this week's show does deal with another announcement by Chris Grayling. He has been electioneering announcing what he's doing for complainants victims. So what's new? In our usual vein, this week Ben brings us a thoughtful report on the MoJ's recent publication. Regular listeners may think they know where this is going...

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Hear this week's show right here.This is a silly episode to end series 13. We are doing cake, bourbon and tea. Yep, we are covering rulings of the tax tribunal and the Advertising Standards Agency. You might think that this would be a bit dry but no. We go to town on Tunnocks and get passionate about pyramids.Please don't expect the usual cutting analysis of heavy-weight appeal decisions. Instead, expect munching and slurping. And some chortling. Normal service will be resumed next series!In the meantime, stay subscribed for UK Criminal Law Blog Podcast. They'll be up next week.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

In a CBA vice-chair election special, we are joined by the two candidates, Mark Fenhalls QC and Paul Keleher QC.

There was no bloodshed in this head-to-head but we think you'll want to hear what both candidates have to say on the wide-ranging topics up for discussion.

We cover everything from "The Deal" to the future use of direct action; from how to stop the slide back into the Bar being for the white, male, middle-class to what the future holds for the Bar in light of the reviews.

We put some of your questions to the two candidates and ask about the very structure of the CBA.

If you are a CBA member, you'll probably want to listen to this in order to help you decide on how to use your vote.

If you are not a CBA member, you might still find this little chat illuminating as to what is the sights of those who will serve initially under Tony Cross QC.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Listen to this week's show right here.We have swapped Kirstin for Jonathan this week as we take on what must be the two biggest immigration cases of the year, MM and PLP vs Grayling - not their official titles!These cases may be weighty immigration cases but they are important far more broadly as they involve the relationship between the State, Europe and private individuals. They also demonstrate that politics may be getting in the way of good law-making, not for the first time.Following on from that, we took a look at Re: Ian Stuart West - a case where a friend of our little show appealed a finding a contempt against him and landed-up winning before Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. Many have wondered why this Judge should hear this appeal and many lawyers are coming out on both sides of the battle lines on this one. To hear extracts from the spat between Ian and Judge Kelson QC, you need look no further. This is cathartic stuff for many criminal lawyers, faced with an increased feeling of being asked to be complicit in the manipulation of defendants, rather than the representation of them. In any event, lots to mull over in this week's show so enjoy and get in touch with your views.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!Feeding BritCaster.com

We have talked about expert witnesses many times over the past 12 series but we have seldom explored exactly what an "expert witness" is, what they do, to whom they are accountable, how they are regulated and how they come to be involved in cases. This week, we fix that by catching-up with Glen Siddall of Aequitas Forensics, Manchester. Glen is an expert in digital forensics and he is instructed by "both sides" in criminal proceedings. We ask him about his work and about recent changes in the world of the expert witness and about hacking Richard Bacon's iPhone.We also talk to Glen about the recent BBC documentary, Panorama - Justice For Sale? Did the programme accurately reflect his experience of being an expert and does he agree with the conclusions of the journalist and of Timothy Dutton QC, former Chair of the Bar about future regulation?In the news this week, fresh evidence appeals. We record on the day after a man walks free after being wrongly-convicted of raping his wife multiple times. Fresh evidence emerged that the complainant (who still cannot be named) had lied about the rape, had talked about lying in advance of the trial and seemingly boasted about lying after the event. This is the nightmare scenario that, whilst certainly rare, we would prefer to think never happens. He had been sentenced to 9 years for each count but this was increased to 13 years by the Court of Appeal, following an Attorney-General's Reference.

With that and other matters in our minds, we look at what the Court of Appeal has recently said about fresh evidence and we'll consider whether its approach is consistent.A little bit of Freedom of Information too, this week. We heard that the CPS was using unpaid students to prepare cases in one of its offices. We asked if this could possibly be true. They answered our FOI request. Is the answer surprising or not?

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see. If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!Feeding BritCaster.com

In the light of the recent verdicts and sentence in Rolph Harris' case, Kirstin goes through the Sexual Offences Act 1956, looking at what offences are contained in it and how amendments have affected the law.
Given that we are on the subject of how the law changes over the years and that retrospective legislation is dangerous territory, we thought it would be worthwhile to take a peek at the decision of the High Court in Reilly (No.2) as the Government gets a bloody nose for playing dirty with JSA claimants.

Both hefty legal matters this week so next week we will hopefully be being chatty on the subject of experts and looking at our postbag from the CPS, MoJ and Home Office. Doesn't look like fan mail....

Also, PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.

We are back for Series 13 (!) of the podcast and we are raring to go with some law this week. Many thanks to the good folks at UK Criminal Law Blog Podcast and thanks again to Lyndon Harris for having both Kirstin and Ben on this series.

As always, you can hear this week's show by clicking here.Also, PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.And now, on with the show notes:

When can the Attorney-General have the CA review a sentence?

We often talk of defence appeals but if the AG thinks that a sentence is passed he can refer it to the CA (with leave) but only in some cases.

The cake and bourbon show is upon us again. Our 72nd episode can be heard right here.

In this week's show, we take a look at Sir Bill Jeffrey's review of independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales. It may be reopening an old front in the war between barristers and HCAs but the conclusions give considerable grounds for taking stock of the effects of all the reforms over the last 10 years. They also present a potentially chilling view of the future for anyone who fears change. Find the full report in the links below - along with the responses by the Bar Council and Law Society.

The Land Registry might be next in terms of selling the family silver - at the very least, there are problems with the reform plans for the Keepers of the Plans.

A pretty important costs case which confirms that the CPS and police cannot just blame each other to avoid costs orders and, more importantly, SNAFU is not a defence and neither is simple mistake. You're going to want to bookmark this one. The link is polite.

We also take a quick scoot the rest of this week's legal news and a couple of other cases. Take a listen and find the links below.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we come to the end of this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words. We'd be e'er so obliged. It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.

Friday, 2 May 2014

It's NorthPod Law 4 - MoJ and the Home Office 0 as (oh dear) Kirstin Beswick and Jonathan Holt have a lot of fun at the expense of those two ministries - you can Listen Here.

First up is the total collapse of a five-handed serious fraud involving the exploitation of members of the public, including rather vulnerable people. And why? Well, because as the MoJ has discovered that if you pay peanuts, sometimes you can't even get monkeys.

It doesn't help does it, Mr Grayling, when it's the Prime Minister's brother who's making the application...and doing it for free.

On this week's show, which you can listen to by clicking these very words, Ben and Kirstin talk their way through the so-called "revolution" in the family courts.

It is something of an oddity that reforms that actually do very little in terms of changing the status quo and, instead, assume that lawyers have been doing it wrong for all of this time, should be heralded as a "revolution" by a political judge. Check out the government hype in the links below.

Not content with having a pop at the President of the Family Division's self-congratulation, Ben finds the High Court utterly objectionable as it gives a litigant in person a raw deal and seems to object to justice being done.

Knife crime guidelines get the sharp tongue of Kirstin as we celebrate another Court of Appeal decision that is a little lacking in purpose.

In addition, we have a little look at the cost of getting judicial review wrong - or rather, not turning to the silver bullet that is ADR.

Yes, you may be able to tell that we are feeling more than a little snarky this week. It might pass. It might not.

On this week's show, which you can hear by clicking here, we are joined by lap-dancer-turned-law-student, Vanessa Knowles to talk about how a law student making good money from being very visible online might encounter problems in a future career. It turns out things are not as bleak as you might think.

We talk about how not to deal with the Court of Appeal when it comes to having a pop at a client's previous lawyers and how the Court uses its rarely-wielded power to dismiss a case without a hearing of any sort.

We look at a rarely-used power to have a witness deposed - US-style! Is it about to be used more often after being on the statute books for many years?

We also take a look at the Legal Aid position in relation to awkward forensic experts holding on to evidence until a fee is paid by defence lawyers. No spoilers, but it turns out that things are not quite as they seem.

All of that and we have a quick glance at the sad plight of Nigel Evans MP, the PDS and Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman.

Check out the links below for the sources used and for additional material we thought you might like to read.

Have a good Easter break.

The links:

No charge allowed for prosecution expert labs to show all to the defence - Keith Borer Consultants make a FOI request to the Forensic Regulator.

Enough with the awful title and dreadful pun - is it a pun? This week we transport you to the sunny shores of Cape Town via a fascinating interview with barrister David Pojur, telling us all about the legal system that's currently trying Oscar Pistorius.

Kirstin discusses Re G a family case with wider importance to absent fathers and Ben tells you why the glimmer of hope we had in POCA cases turns out to be fools gold due to R v King whilst Jonathan saves the day with some good news and a quote from Simon Spence QC.

We urge you to reply to the BSB consultation - Possibly the most important thing you will do this year.

If you would like to know more about Legal Hack Minnesota you can find out here. We do hope they're going to come and tell us more in person.

In week one, we talk to Family Barrister Joe Lynch about the proposed changes to the child cruelty laws to add in emotional abuse. Should it be done? Can it be done? How's it done in the rest of the world? The Action for Children report can be found here

We exclusively reveal how much the Lord Chancellor's car costs - STOP PRESS!!

And we confuse you completely with the proposed theft sentencing guidelines - don't forget to engage with the consultation to try at least to make it less complicated. You can read about it, confuse yourself and contribute here.

Your extra reading material can be found here (POCA Case) and here (Solicitor)

Friday, 7 February 2014

This week we carry on
the tradition of the series in that we're a member of the usual team short. It's Ben on this occasion. He'll be back next week, I'm sure. Listen Here

Matters under
consideration are – what knowingly means when it comes to the
environment; when a crime under the Dangerous Dogs Act is not a
crime at all (and it's not the same as the last one); when parking
is not parking and when a solicitor can hang on to papers and when he
has to pass them on.

Ben and Jonathan get to grips with some matters of public importance this week's show.

First up is a look at the guidance (in force from February 2014) on the publication of decisions of the family courts and the Court of Protection. There are some interesting questions raised about how this is going to work and who is paying for it. Either way, you'll have to know about this if you work in either of these areas of law and the public may well find the reality of these cases far more challenging than the abstract way in which they are reported at present.We move on to the case of the "Iceland Three". This story was all over social media this week. This was the case of three men who faced prosecution for taking food from a skip at a London branch of London. There was outrage and a change in CPS approach but, once you factor-in other information that appeared in later reports, did the CPS make the right call or were they duped by the publicity?

Then onto our favourite [redacted for legal purposes], Theresa May. She has been calling for some powers that, if they were to be used against convicted terrorists, you might think were pretty obvious, but that's not quite what she wants. We look at the terrible misreporting of this case by almost all UK media. There is some very scary devil in the detail and Ben issues a personal thanks to his MP, Hazel Blears, for being one of the 297 MPs who played politics with something the UN think is fundamental to a person's very being.

As always, there is stuff that we didn't get to this week. Please see the show notes below for the links to those stories and for all of the articles for the above.

- Even those terps who scabbed and went to work for Capita are now calling for a boycott. This is because Capita has finally scrapped Tier 2/3 terps and so the power is now in the hands of the Tier 1s.